If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You have to register
before you can post. To do so, click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please do not post any copyrighted images or content without permission from the owner of those images or content. If you are unsure if an image or content is copyright protected, do not post it. When posting images from Google's image search, be sure to utilize the ability to filter by Usage Rights. This is located under Tools > Usage Rights. Any materials that infringe on any owner's Intellectual Property rights will be promptly removed.

We made too much money on a player that has been in the league for three years. Look at Marc Stall, De facto captain, first d-line,has been in the league for five years (at the end of his deal) and is paid $500,000 more than a three-year player in Brady Skjei? SMH!! Gorton is not our money wisely, mainly on this deal. I have never liked him as GM.

We should really start to talk about %'s of the cap when players signs new deals, not the numbers. This deal is actually cheaper than the bargain deal we signed with McD, so if Skjei can establish himself as a top pair player this deal is a steal in the future. If he ends up a top 4 player it will still be a really good deal.

It's a value deal if he's a second pair guy, and if he turns into a true number one, it's a bargain. Almost no risk with this contract.

That's how I look at it too. I posted earlier in the thread (and this is all assumption, but it seems pretty fair to assume) that this past season was the floor. We've seen what he's capable of and I fully expect him to put last season behind him and move forward.

It's a value deal if he's a second pair guy, and if he turns into a true number one, it's a bargain. Almost no risk with this contract.

The risk is that his rookie year was a fluke, last year was a step back both offensively and defensively and he continues to be a marginal defender who's only real asset is his tremendous speed. IE, the Rangers locked up John Moore for 6 years at $5.25M per.

Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck. George Carlin

The risk is that his rookie year was a fluke, last year was a step back both offensively and defensively and he continues to be a marginal defender who's only real asset is his tremendous speed. IE, the Rangers locked up John Moore for 6 years at $5.25M per.

I guess I shouldn't say no risk, because I wouldn't have given him this contract for this reason. I soured on Skjei the last half of last season - and he lost his spot on the top pair to Marc Staal, which people forget.

But even then, I think he'll be a better player moving forward. I don't think he's a #1, but that deal for most any guy at this age who is going to play 20:00+ a night is fine.

I tend to view last season as an anomaly. A catastrophic one that almost no one came out of unscathed. Not Zuccarello, not Hayes, and certainly not Skjei. Even Lundqvist suffered. I largely choose to discount it's effect on the bigger picture, which is why I view this as a win, rather than a risky gamble. I actually view it as win-win, because even if you average out Skjei year one to Skjei year two, paying that player $5.25M per year will only be an overpayment for another year or two before inflation rights the ship.

The question which nobody can answer at this point is if Skjei is the up and coming player he appeared to be in his rookie season playing sheltered minutes against bottom 6 forwards or is he the horrid defender he showed last season playing against top 6 forwards? Hopefully he's at worst in between the two.

I guess I shouldn't say no risk, because I wouldn't have given him this contract for this reason. I soured on Skjei the last half of last season - and he lost his spot on the top pair to Marc Staal, which people forget.

But even then, I think he'll be a better player moving forward. I don't think he's a #1, but that deal for most any guy at this age who is going to play 20:00+ a night is fine.

I think that's a fair assessment. My one concern here is that as a rebuilding team that looks to have a clear cap sheet for when they are ready to compete again, there is a problem for me that the first "big" deal they've signed has some bust potential. Bust in that they could end up paying a player $2M more than their replacement level UFA would likely get to perform in a similar role when the team is competitve again. If the deal had tremendous upside as well, then perhaps that's a worthwile gamble.

Having watched Skjei through ~150 games though, his ceiling is a preinjury McDonagh-lite in my estimation. Less productive and without the top-end defensive skills McDonagh had in his prime. I suspect he'll be a really good 3/4 defender and that can certainly be worth $5.25M/year. But that's where I see him topping out at. So we paid a cost controlled player top-dollar for the top of his range.

It's a miss for me.

Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck. George Carlin

I tend to view last season as an anomaly. A catastrophic one that almost no one came out of unscathed. Not Zuccarello, not Hayes, and certainly not Skjei. Even Lundqvist suffered. I largely choose to discount it's effect on the bigger picture, which is why I view this as a win, rather than a risky gamble. I actually view it as win-win, because even if you average out Skjei year one to Skjei year two, paying that player $5.25M per year will only be an overpayment for another year or two before inflation rights the ship.

The optics would be bad if he flattens out. The first big step in locking up what management views as the new core would be a stumble. I think Skjei's defense in year-1 over year-2 is likely what we get moving forward, but whether that can be maintained against better opposition in an increased role along with the typical increase in awareness/performance that comes with experience. On the flipside, I think year-2 offense is much more likely to be the norm for Skjei than year-1, specifically because he has no history before the NHL to indicate his rookie year production was anything beyond a fluke.

Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck. George Carlin

One final point on Skjei. We saw how he responded when the D was a shitshow last year and he was rushed into a prime role. It wasn't good. After locking him up, he will be expected to stay in that prime role, and there is danger that his career gets ruined by playing him above where he should be in the lineup simply because the team lacks better options. Now, hopefully if he continues to sink against top-tier opposition, they put Staal in that prime role and let Skjei continue to develop even as they pay him to be a top 3 defender.

Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck. George Carlin

One final point on Skjei. We saw how he responded when the D was a shitshow last year and he was rushed into a prime role. It wasn't good. After locking him up, he will be expected to stay in that prime role, and there is danger that his career gets ruined by playing him above where he should be in the lineup simply because the team lacks better options. Now, hopefully if he continues to sink against top-tier opposition, they put Staal in that prime role and let Skjei continue to develop even as they pay him to be a top 3 defender.

IMO, Skjei is going to suffer more due to who he will be paired with. He may not be top pair material just yet, but who ever they pair with him is DEFINITELY not going to be a top pairing player. Not exactly sure how to gauge his play if he's stuck with a defensive liability, which most of the D men on the roster are. Pionk or Smith are the best options. A rookie and a guy who cleared waivers last year......

Was really hoping they could have packaged Hayes for one of the leagues RFA RH D-men that are out there. Come onnnnnnnn sign and trade (yes I'm aware it would cost more than just Hayes).

i don’t know how you can worry about the d partner. Skjei supposed to be a rock in his own end yet has only been successful with a more defensive partner. That’s a glaring issue.

At best, he’s still going to be a complimentary partner. He’s a Stralman, Girardi, Smith.

And that's what he's signed as. Girardi signed for 5,5m in 2014 and Stralman signed for 4,5m in 2014, in % of the cap Skjei's deal are cheaper than both. Skjei is already better than Smith ever has been so I don't think that's a good comparison (but he still signed for just under 1m less).

And that's what he's signed as. Girardi signed for 5,5m in 2014 and Stralman signed for 4,5m in 2014, in % of the cap Skjei's deal are cheaper than both. Skjei is already better than Smith ever has been so I don't think that's a good comparison (but he still signed for just under 1m less).

Now trade Hayes+ for Trouba and we have our 1st pair locked down.

Girardi and Stralman were signed as UFAs in those deals, though. Skjei still had 3 years of RFA eligibility when he signed. Girardi and Stralman were both much bettern known commodities at that point as well, having each played 400+ NHL games at the time they signed those deals.

Skjei has 169 so far. That's the same number McDonagh had before he re-signed prior to the 13/14 season. At that time, McDonagh was well on his way to establishing himself as a top pair defenseman. I would argue that we've shown that the jury is still out on where Skjei ends up. Their salary cap percentage were pretty similar.

To me, a 6 year commitment to Skjei, if that was the goal, should have been $1M lower, so there was significantly more chance that he'd be paid fairly or be a steal. He really has to mirror McDonagh in almost every way to make this contract a home run for the Rangers.

Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck. George Carlin

Girardi and Stralman were signed as UFAs in those deals, though. Skjei still had 3 years of RFA eligibility when he signed. Girardi and Stralman were both much bettern known commodities at that point as well, having each played 400+ NHL games at the time they signed those deals.

Skjei has 169 so far. That's the same number McDonagh had before he re-signed prior to the 13/14 season. At that time, McDonagh was well on his way to establishing himself as a top pair defenseman. I would argue that we've shown that the jury is still out on where Skjei ends up. Their salary cap percentage were pretty similar.

To me, a 6 year commitment to Skjei, if that was the goal, should have been $1M lower, so there was significantly more chance that he'd be paid fairly or be a steal. He really has to mirror McDonagh in almost every way to make this contract a home run for the Rangers.

Sure, for it to be a home run he needs to be a #1 or 2, but it would still be a good deal if he turns out to be a solid 2nd pair player playing 20-22 min/game.

I just hope they don't "rush" him and asks him to play big minutes already next season in hope of him turning out to be a top pair player just because they now gave him a big contract. He still got a lot to learn and he's not ready to be the main man on a top pair right now.

The risk is that his rookie year was a fluke, last year was a step back both offensively and defensively and he continues to be a marginal defender who's only real asset is his tremendous speed. IE, the Rangers locked up John Moore for 6 years at $5.25M per.

As I've seen this comparison in a few places I think it is fair to note that, even in his "step back" sophomore year, Skjei exceeded Moore's career high point total - which was reached in Moore's 6th of 7 full seasons in the NHL. He beat Moore's career high for hits in his rookie season and blocked shots and ATOI in his second. While there is always risk, I don't think the comparison is fair to the upside that Skjei has displayed thus far.